It makes good business sense for your firm to seek to limit the extent of its liability to clients. However, there are regulatory and legal hurdles to clear and restrictions on what a liability cap can achieve. This Practice Note describes the legal and professional requirements applicable to law firms when they limit their liability to commercial clients and explains the restrictions on what a liability cap can achieve. Since 1 October 2015, contracts between ‘consumers’ and ‘traders’ are subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It is much more difficult to exclude or limit liability in a consumer contract and certain 'blacklisted' terms are automatically unenforceable. This Practice Note does not cover limiting your liability to consumer clients. See instead Practice Note: Limiting liability—consumer clients—law firms. SRA requirements You must not exclude or attempt to exclude liability below the minimum level of professional indemnity insurance (PII) cover required by the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules. This is: • £3 million for firms that are corporate entities (including LLPs) • £2 million for partnerships and sole practitioners

It makes good business sense for your firm to seek to limit the extent of its liability to clients. However, there are regulatory and legal hurdles to clear and restrictions on what a liability cap can achieve. In the case of consumer clients, you must bear in mind not only SRA requirements and guidance, but also statutory restrictions in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). SRA restrictions You must not exclude or attempt to exclude liability below the minimum level of cover required by the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules. This is: • £3m for firms that are corporate entities (including LLPs) • £2m for partnerships and sole practitioners (excluding LLPs) SRA guidance You should bear in mind guidance published by the SRA. The guidance is on the requirement to take out and maintain adequate and appropriate insurance under the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules, but also includes a section on capping your liability to clients. Whenever you seek to cap your liability to clients, you should consider your duty: • not to abuse your position

Arbitration analysis: The Swedish Supreme Court has upheld part of an arbitral award in an investor-state arbitration which contained intra-EU elements. This new ruling sheds further light on the practical possibility to use investor-state arbitration in the EU, in the post-Achmea era. The Supreme Court overturned the full annulment of the arbitral award ordered by the Svea Court of Appeal, declaring only a partial annulment. In doing so, the Supreme Court held that, despite being part of the very same investment and the same arbitral proceedings, the claims made by the non-EU investor (a Swiss investor) were sufficiently distinguishable from those of the four EU investors. Thus, the court found that ordre public did not require that the entire arbitral award be annulled, and therefore the court allowed the award to stand against the Swiss investor. It follows that, for arbitrations seated in Sweden, non-EU investors may under certain circumstances still rely on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) arbitration against EU member states, even in situations when the disputed investment also involved co-investors from the EU. Written by James Hope, partner, Nils Ivars, senior associate, Martin Hammarskiöld, associate at Vinge, Stockholm, Sweden.

EU analysis: Giulio Coraggio, partner, Elena Varese, partner, Carolina Battistella, trainee lawyer, and Maria Vittoria Pessina, intern of DLA Piper, Italy, consider the text and data mining (TDM) copyright exception under Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (EU DSM Copyright Directive) and how it applies to the use of datasets in generative artificial intelligence (AI). They also consider the practical steps that rights-holders can take to opt out of the TDM exception, what the disclosure obligations under the EU AI Act are and the impact these will likely have.

Relating to a DCO and the Order plans, the works plans include the limits within which the development and works may be carried out and any limits of deviation provided for in the Order. A promoter has to explain how these limits of deviation have been derived.

Financial Services analysis: The Administrative Court quashed four FOS jurisdiction decisions concerning unfair relationship complaints under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974), holding that Plevin and Smith v RBS did not create a continuing corrective responsibility capable of generating fresh daily omissions for DISP 2.8.2R purposes. The judgment distinguishes the Financial Ombudsman Service's (FOS’s) jurisdictional gateway from its merits assessment: an ombudsman may consider the whole credit relationship when assessing fairness but cannot grant redress for time-barred events absent an in-time act or omission. The decision materially restricts attempts to recast historic lending complaints as continuing unfairness and provides lenders with a significant basis for jurisdictional challenges. Produced in partnership with Charlotte Eborall, barrister of 3 Verulam Buildings.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Giving judgment on an application for strike out/summary judgment, Mr Justice Foxton grappled with two issues which, while often fundamental to tracing claims, have not previously received substantial judicial consideration: (1) the limits of tracing into the payment of a debt (ie ‘backwards tracing’); and (2) ‘election’ in the context of alternative tracing claims. In a judgment which is essential reading for any party tasked with identifying trust assets and litigating tracing claims, the court held that (1) backwards tracing into assets acquired prior to the misuse of trust assets is not permitted, save in certain narrow exceptions; and (2) a beneficiary seeking to pursue a claim for misappropriated funds can elect which course to follow at the time that a judgment on issues of tracing trust assets is given (rather than being required to do so earlier, for example when asserting its claim to one particular asset). Written by Deborah Tillett, senior associate, and Jonathan Pagan, partner, at Enyo Law LLP.

Arbitration analysis: In VXJ v FY, RH & XL, the Commercial Court refused an application by VXJ for court assistance under sections 43 and 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). VXJ had sought to compel non-party shareholders to produce corruption investigation files, US litigation documents and technical reports for use in a London-seated United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) arbitration. The court held that the requests were drafted too broadly, raised significant issues of privilege and confidentiality, and would impose disproportionate burdens, particularly given the scale of the archives involved. It emphasised that a witness summons under section 43 requires precise identification of documents and proof of necessity, while section 44(2)(c) is confined to inspection or preservation of property, not disclosure of document contents. The decision highlights the narrow scope of court intervention in arbitration, reinforcing that non-party relief will only be granted where the application is tightly framed, necessary, and proportionate. Written by Tatiana Minaeva, Independent Arbitrator.

Banking & Finance analysis: Tom Snelling, partner, and Victor Tong, associate, both at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, consider a recent High Court decision, which looked at the limits of estoppel by convention.

Dispute resolution: The case concerned the scope and effect of CPR 40.9 which provides: ‘a person who is not a party but who is directly affected by a judgment or order may apply to have the judgment or order set aside or varied.’ The main issue for determination was whether the applicants, in their role as individual directors and trustees of a charity, were ‘directly affected’ by a default judgment obtained against the charity and thus had standing to set it aside. At first instance, a master had decided they were ‘directly affected’ and adopted a very broad construction of CPR 40.9. However, his decision was then overturned on appeal to the High Court and in this judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld that High Court decision, preferring to construe the term ‘directly affected’ on a more narrow basis. Written by Colleen Hanley, barrister at 20 Essex St Chambers, London.

Lincolnshire County Council has issued a pre-action protocol (PAP) letter to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, seeking clarification on the process behind the government's preferred model for local government reorganisation (LGR) in Lincolnshire. In July 2026, the government announced a preferred model which would see the creation of two new unitary councils in the area, with North and North East Lincolnshire councils remaining as they are. The PAP letter seeks clarification on how competing proposals were assessed against the government's own criteria and how consultation responses from the public and other organisations were taken into account. The council has not commenced judicial review proceedings, nor has any decision been taken to do so. The council intends to consider the government's response before deciding what, if any, further action to take.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 15 October 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition by Lindab International AB of HAS-Vent Holdings Limited. The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in relation to the supply of circular ducts and fittings in England and Wales. Latest developments On 15 October 2024, the CMA issued its final report finding that the transaction may be expected to result in an SLC in the supply of circular ducts and fittings in the local areas centred around Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent. In particular, the CMA found in these areas that the parties are close competitors and face only limited competition from alternative suppliers. This could lead to reduced choice and higher prices for installers of ventilation systems on those areas. To remedy the SLC, the CMA has decided that the most effect remedy was for Lindab International AB to market for sale each of the following potential divestment sites: Lindab Nottingham, Lindab Stoke-on-Trent,